The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

IJCHM
32,1 Ethical work climate, organizational
identification, leader-member-
exchange (LMX) and organizational
212 citizenship behavior (OCB)
Received 10 July 2018
Revised 3 December 2018
A study of three star hotels in Taiwan
31 May 2019
20 August 2019
Chih-Ching Teng
Accepted 22 September 2019 Department of Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional Management,
Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan
Allan Cheng Chieh Lu
Graduate Institute of International Human Resource Development,
National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan, and
Zhi-Yang Huang and Chien-Hua Fang
Department of Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional Management,
Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to propose and test a moderated mediation model examining the relationships
among ethical work climate, organizational identification, leader-member-exchange (LMX) and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB).
Design/methodology/approach – Numerous regression analyses were performed using PROCESS
(version 2.13), a macro for SPSS developed by Hayes (2017) to test this moderated mediation model.
Findings – The analytical results showed that organizational identification mediates the positive
relationship between an ethical work climate and OCB. The analytical results also showed that LMX
moderates the direct effect of ethical work climate on organizational identification and that LMX also
moderates the indirect effect of ethical work climate on OCB via organizational identification.
Practical implications – This study provides numerous valuable implications for hotels to develop
effective strategies to promote employees’ OCB and improve their organizational identification.
Originality/value – This study was the first attempt to propose and test a moderated mediation model
that explores the relationships among ethical work climate, organizational identification, leader-member-
exchange (LMX) and OCB.
Keywords Organizational identification, Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB),
Ethical work climate, Leader-member-exchange (LMX)
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
International Journal of
Employees/managers in the hospitality industry often exhibit unethical behaviors such
Contemporary Hospitality as stealing company property, hiding mistakes during the service provision process
Management
Vol. 32 No. 1, 2020
pp. 212-229
© Emerald Publishing Limited The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of China,
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2018-0563 Taiwan, for financially supporting this research under contract MOST 104-2628-S-030-001-MY3.
and treating customers unfairly, all of which can jeopardize organizational Study of three
competitiveness and service quality (Kim and Brymer, 2011). This situation highlights star hotels in
the importance of developing an ethical work climate to minimize and prevent such
misconduct. An ethical work environment can be defined as “the prevailing perceptions
Taiwan
of typical organizational practices and procedures that have ethical content” (Victor
and Cullen, 1988, p. 101). Empirical studies have showed that an ethical work climate
would direct organizational members to behave ethically. An ethical work climate also
enhances numerous favorable job-related outcomes of employees, such as satisfaction 213
toward the job, commitment toward the organization (Cheng et al., 2013; Kim and
Miller, 2008), less stress on the job roles, less intention to quit and better performance
on the job (Jaramillo et al., 2006). Although these studies have reported many
organizational benefits of an ethical work climate, few studies have investigated a
desirable employee behavioral outcome that might also be a potential benefit that
results from an ethical work climate, namely, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
(Shin, 2012). Hence, the purpose of this empirical study was to address this gap by
examining whether an ethical work climate affects employee OCB. OCB refers to
employees’ self-initiated behaviors for the organization, and this kind of behaviors are
not required and not rewarded by the organization (Organ, 1988). Organ et al. (2005)
suggested that more research is needed to gather empirical evidence of the relationship
between OCB and its possible predictors, in order that various conceptual models can
be formulated to discover the possible mechanisms leading to OCB. By investigating
the association between ethical work climate and OCB, this study responds to such
query. Moreover, studying employee OCB is practically important for the hospitality
industry, as employees who exhibit OCB typically provide good quality of services for
customers (Liang, 2012).
This study also probed the possible mediation mechanism between the two
aforementioned concepts, as such a mechanism provides a deeper understanding of how
an ethical work climate affects employee OCB. Organizational identification refers to the
degree to which employees define themselves by the same attributes that they believe
define their organization (Dutton et al., 1994), which might be a key variable explaining
such underlying mechanism. As OCB represents the voluntary/extra efforts and
behaviors of employees to help/benefit their organizations, employees who strongly
identify with their organizations should be likely to conduct such behavior. In line with
this rationale, many studies reported organizational identification is one critical
antecedent of OCB (Liu et al., 2011; Van Dick et al., 2006). In contrast with the strong
evidence of a link between organizational identification and OCB in the literature, there is
a serious shortage of research efforts on how an ethical work climate impacts employees’
organizational identification (DeConinck, 2011). Mayer (2014) also suggested that further
studies are needed to clarify why ethical climate is related to various outcomes.
Therefore, probing the mediating mechanism of organizational identification between
ethical work climate and OCB would address these shortcomings.
Another purpose of this study was to test how leader-member-exchange (hereafter LMX),
a possible moderating variable, might influence the association between ethical work
climate and organizational identification. LMX denotes the quality of the relationship shared
by supervisors and subordinates, and the quality of LMX depends on the development of
reciprocal respect, trust, loyalty, and a sense of obligation between both parties (Graen and
Scandura, 1987). Therefore, high quality LMX enhances employee satisfaction with their
leaders, and thus, fosters a number of favorable job-related outcomes, i.e. higher job
performance, job satisfaction, commitment, organizational identification and OCB
IJCHM (Cha and Borchgrevink, 2018; Kim and Koo, 2017; Luo et al., 2014; Wang, 2016; Wang et al.,
32,1 2017). As LMX is one critical predictor of organizational identification, LMX might also
interact with other influential factors of organizational identification to jointly affect
organizational identification. This study thus proposes LMX might be an important
moderator for the relationship between ethical work climate and organizational
identification. To the best of authors’ knowledge, literature still has no empirical study
214 investigating whether an ethical work climate would affect employees’ attitudes/behaviors
differently due to different qualities of leader-member relationships. Consequently, studying
the possible moderating effect of LMX between ethical work climate and organizational
identification would advance the understanding of the extant literature about the conditions
in which LMX is likely to strengthen/weaken the effect of ethical work climate on
organizational identification. Clarifying the moderation effect of LMX would also help
hospitality operators to have a better understanding as to whether they can enhance
employees’ organizational identification more effectively by managing the ethical work
climate and the quality of leader-member relationship in the organization.
To summarize, the current study built and tested a moderated mediation model that links
ethical work climate with one critical behavioral outcome, OCB. The model also proposed
that organizational identification triggers this relationship. Lastly, this model examined
whether the association between ethical work climate and organizational identification is
moderated by LMX.

Literature review and hypothesis development

Ethical work climate
An ethical work climate refers to “the shared perceptions of what is ethically correct
behavior and how ethical issues should be handled” (Victor and Cullen, 1987, p. 51). That is,
an ethical work climate represents a shared value about acceptable and unacceptable
behaviors regarding moral issues, and it provides employees with appropriate response
guidelines for helping them to resolve ethical issues. Therefore, an organization’s ethical
work climate determines its ethical norm and desired performances (Cheng et al., 2013).
Various organizational benefits of an ethical work climate have been identified in the
literature, including employees’ satisfaction toward the job, commitment toward the
organization (Cheng et al., 2013; Kim and Miller, 2008), less stress on the job roles, less
intention to quit, better performance on the job (Jaramillo et al., 2006; Jung et al., 2010; Lee
et al., 2015; Luria and Yagil, 2008) and stronger person organization fit (Lopez et al., 2009).
Even many of these previous studies have shown the positive influence of an ethical work
climate on employees’ in-role attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, few studies paid
attention to whether an ethical work climate also affects employees’ extra-role attitudes and
behaviors. Thus, the present research intends to fill this void by examining the role of an
ethical work climate for employees’ extra-role behavior, namely OCB.

Ethical work climate and organizational citizenship behavior

OCB can be defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly
recognized by the formal reward system, and in the aggregate, promotes the efficient and
effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988, p. 4). That is, OCBs are the self-
initiated and voluntary behaviors beyond employees’ official job roles and can facilitate the
efficiency of organizational operations. The general consensus in the literature is that OCB is
a multidimensional construct (LePine et al., 2002; Organ, 1988), and there are two
approaches consistently adopted in prior studies to categorize OCB dimensions. One
approach is based on the nature of OCB (Organ, 1988; Organ et al., 2005), while another
approach is based on the targets of OCB (Williams and Anderson, 1991). In the approach Study of three
based on the nature of OCB, the most widely used model is Organ’s (1988) five dimensional star hotels in
model which categorizes OCB into conscientiousness: employees exhibit high commitment
to deliver superior job quality and performance; altruism: employees express unselfishness
Taiwan
to help others; civic virtue: employees display active attitudes and responsibility to
participate in the community events and activities of the organization; sportsmanship:
employees hold a fair stance, and do not think or act negatively; courtesy: employees show
courtesy and politeness to each other. In the approach based on the targets of OCB, a
215
representative model is the two dimensional model developed by Williams and Anderson
(1991). They classified OCB into OCB-Individual: behaviors beneficial for particular
members, and hence, indirectly contribute to the organization; OCB-Organization: behaviors
beneficial for the organization as a whole. The approach based on the targets of OCB
provides an important contribution to the literature, as it addresses an essential shortcoming
of the first approach, meaning that employees might be unable to uniformly exhibit all kinds
of OCBs due to the nature of organizational differences (Ma et al., 2016).
Many studies agree that OCB is a critical antecedent of customer satisfaction and
employee service quality and performance (Chiang and Hsieh, 2012; Yoon and Suh, 2003).
As OCB generates important benefits to an organization, much research effort has been
devoted to identify important causes of OCB. Some important predictors of OCB include
employee perceptions of organizational fairness, reputation or support, job satisfaction and
commitment, leadership behaviors, organizational tasks or personal characteristics (Chiang
and Hsieh, 2012; Fu et al., 2014; Ocampo et al., 2018; Sun et al., 2013). However, few studies
have investigated whether employee perceptions of an ethical work climate also affect their
OCBs (Shin, 2012).
The social information processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978) is a core theoretical
lens for analyzing the possible effect of an ethical work climate on employees OCB. This
theory suggests that individuals will use important cues and information in the surrounding
environment to understand how to behave appropriately in that environment. Applying the
rationale of this theory to the context of work environment, employees would collect
relevant information and clues from the work environment, and make/take appropriate
decisions/actions accordingly. Therefore, when employees are immersed in an ethical work
climate where they can observe, experience and interpret various ethical practices in the
organization, they should thus exhibit ethical behaviors afterward to cater to these
organizational practices. As prior research has reported that OCB has ethical context in
nature (Turnipseed, 2002), this study thus proposes OCB is also likely to occur in a salient
ethical work climate. The above discussion leads to H1 of this study.

H1. Ethical work climate has a positive effect on OCB.

Organizational identification and its mediating effect

The rational of organizational identification theory is built on social identity theory (Tajfel
and Turner, 1979), which suggests that groups (e.g. social status, family, baseball team, etc.)
that people belong to are a critical source of self-concept, and people typically attempt to
improve the status of the group they belong to increase self-image. In the organizational
context, identification can be defined as:
The perception of oneness with or belongingness to an organization, where the individual defines
him or herself in terms of the organization(s) in which he or she is a member (Mael and Ashforth,
1992, p. 104).
IJCHM That is, organizational identification represents the strength of the cognitive attachment of
32,1 an employee to an organization. A person who strongly identify with an organization is
likely to define himself/herself using organizational characteristics and acts in the
organization’s best interest (Ashforth et al., 2008). Studies indicated that organizational
identification is a significant driver of various favorable organizational outcomes, e.g.
employees’ higher job involvement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and OCB
216 (Lee et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). As organizational
identification has been found as a critical predictor of OCB, organizational identification
might be an important reason why an ethical work climate might affect OCB.
The social identity theory serves as a proper theoretical underpinning to explain why an
ethical work climate might affect OCB through organizational identification. This theory
suggests that people tend to identify groups that allow themselves to perceive their identity
in a unique and favorable way. In the organizational context, people are likely to identify
with an organization when they consider that organization as having a good reputation, as
working in that organization increases their self-esteem, and such organizational
identification could in turn influence their affects, cognitions, and behaviors (Mael and
Ashforth, 1992). For example, an organization known for its virtue practices can elicit
employees’ attachment and commitment to the organizational membership due to its
positive image (Ellemers et al., 2008). Employees would in turn become loyal and take proper
actions to protect and maintain this organization’s reputation and identity (Ellemers et al.,
2004). In line with this rationale, a salient ethical work climate normally can help an
organization develop a positive internal reputation and image, which should make
employees feel proud to be part of the organization, strengthen their self-concept, and
enhance their identification with the organization. In turn, employees should attempt to
protect and maintain this positive reputation and identity by engaging in beneficial
behaviors such as OCB, which are beneficial for the organization to achieve its goals, as
doing so could reflect positively on the organization and allow them to further enhance their
self-concept. The above reasoning leads to the second hypothesis of this study.

H2. Organizational identification mediates the positive effect of ethical work climate on
OCB.

Leader-member exchange and its moderating effect

LMX represents the quality of the exchange relationships between employees and their
supervisors, and the quality of these relationships depends on both parties’ mutual trust,
respect and obligation (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Normally, the quality of a LMX relationship
increases as the perceived value of the visible and invisible benefits exchanged between
employees and leaders increases. That is, employees having good quality LMX relationships
with their leaders typically receive more resources and support from their leaders, and they
tend to be effective workers. This phenomenon can be explained by the social exchange theory
(Blau, 1964). This theory suggests that people who are treated favorably by others feel
obligated to return back with positive responses or treatments in some manners. In line with
this rationale, when employees with high quality LMX receive more resources and support
from their leaders, they would feel obligated to return back to their leaders with some positive
responses or treatments. Employees are thus likely to reciprocate by exerting efforts in various
job-related attitudes and behaviors. This could explain why many prior studies found LMX
leads to numerous desirable job-related outcomes, such as higher job performance, job
satisfaction, commitment, organizational identification and OCB (Cha and Borchgrevink, 2018;
Kim and Koo, 2017; Luo et al., 2014; Wang, 2016; Wang et al., 2017). Building on the findings of
these studies that LMX is critical to shape employees’ job-related attitudes and behaviors such Study of three
as organizational identification and OCB, the current study posits LMX might also have an star hotels in
important moderating effect between an ethical work climate and organizational identification,
as well as function as a boundary condition that affects the indirect relationship between an
Taiwan
ethical work climate and OCB.
Although LMX theory is mainly used to understand the leader – subordinate dyad, past
empirical studies have also shown that LMX can contribute to organizational-level attitudes,
such as commitment and identification toward the organization, and less intention to leave the 217
organization (Kim et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017). The LMX can contribute to organizational-
level attitudes is because employees typically consider leaders as the representatives of the
organization and the key persons who manage employment relationships (Eisenberger et al.,
2010). Leaders are also carrying the prototypical characteristics of the organization and exert
social influences on the employees (Hogg et al., 2005). As employees with good quality LMX
typically obtain more organizational resources and support from supervisors’ social network
(Sparrowe and Liden, 1997) and supervisors are the representatives of the organization,
employees with good quality LMX are likely to perceive their organizations as trustworthy, so
that their propensity to identify with their organizations should also increase.
As discussed earlier that a salient ethical work climate might contribute to employees’
organization identification, such identification might be even stronger when employees also
perceive having a good LMX relationship with their supervisors. As such, when
organizational identification becomes stronger, organizational members should also be more
willing to exhibit more in-role/extra-role job performances, such as OCB. All the above
discussion leads to the third and fourth hypothesis of this study.

H3. LMX moderates the positive effect of an ethical work climate on organizational
identification, such that stronger LMX strengthens such positive effect.
H4. The indirect effect of an ethical work climate on OCB through organizational
identification is conditional on LMX, such that stronger LMX strengthens such
indirect effect.
Figure 1 presents the proposed moderated mediation model, which consists of four
hypotheses.

Research method
Participants and data collection procedures
Data of this study were collected using a number of three-star hotel employees in Taiwan.
To control several hotel characteristics (e.g. number of employees, location, and main

Leader-
member
exchange

Ethical Organizational
Organizational
work citizenship
identification
climate behavior
Figure 1.
Research model
IJCHM serving segment) that might possibly compound the results of this study, this study
32,1 randomly selected 50 three-star hotels located in north Taiwan. These 50 hotels mainly
serve leisure travelers and share similar numbers of employees (ranging from 30 to 50).
Researchers invited these 50 hotels to participate in this study, and finally, ten hotels agreed
to help. A self-reported survey was designed for data collection. Questionnaires were mailed
to the HR managers of these ten hotels and then passed down to the management-level
218 supervisors of each department with clear instructions regarding the purpose and procedure
of this survey. Supervisors then distributed the questionnaires to employees. A small gift ($5
gift card) was provided as a token of appreciation for completing the survey. During the
two-month data collection period from October to December, 2017, 316 valid responses were
eventually obtained.

Measurements
The first section of the designed questionnaire contained questions for all the variables, and
the second section collected socio-demographic information. As this study was conducted in
a Mandarin-speaking context, the questionnaire followed Brislin’s (1970) standard back
translation procedure. A pilot test for the questionnaire was also performed using 40 hotel
employees, and the Cronbach’s alpha of all the constructs were above 0.7, which indicates
good reliability of all the measurements.
All scale items of this study were adopted from previous research. Regarding ethical
work climate, seven items from Schwepker and Hartline (2005) were adopted (a = 0.79;
sample item: “I know this hotel is more interested in making money than in meeting
customers’ needs” (R)). Regarding LMX, seven items from Scandura et al. (1986) were
employed (a=0.86; sample item: “My supervisor would be personally inclined to use his/her
power to help me solve problems in my work”). Regarding organizational identification
scales, six items from Mael and Ashforth (1992) were used (a=0.87; sample item: “When
someone criticizes my hotel, it feels like a personal insult”). For OCB, 14 items from Williams
and Anderson (1991) were adopted, with seven items measuring the OCB dimensions of
OCBI (a=0.83; sample item: “I would typically take over a coworker’s duties if they are
absent from work”) and OCBO (a=0.88; sample item: “My attendance at work is above the
norm”). All items were anchored with a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly
disagree”) to 7 (“strongly agree”).
As the data of the independent and dependent variables were collected simultaneously,
this study adopted some strategies proposed by Podsakoff et al. (2003) to control common
method variance. For instance, several irrelevant questions were inserted to give
respondents psychological separation, i.e. the questions for independent and dependent
variables were not related. In addition, the order of the questions of the independent and
dependent variables was counterbalanced. As gender, age and organizational tenure are
reportedly associated with OCB (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Morrison, 1994; Organ and Ryan,
1995), these three factors were included in the analysis as control variables.

Data analysis
The SPSS was used for descriptive statistics of participants’ demographic data and to
analyze the correlations among all variables. The M-Plus was used to perform confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) to assess measurements’ construct validity. Harman’s single factor
test was performed to examine common method variance (CMV) due to the one-wave self-
report design of this study. CMV is not considered as a threat if the Harman test results
show no more than 50 per cent of the total variance was explained by one latent construct.
The PROCESS (version 2.13) developed by Hayes (2017) was employed to test the
hypotheses of this study, including mediation (Model 4), moderation, and moderated Study of three
mediation analysis (Model 7). These analyses were executed based on a bootstrapping star hotels in
approach (Hayes, 2017), which provides a reliable estimation of the indirect effects while Taiwan
also not presuming normality of the sample distribution (Preacher and Hayes, 2008).
Bootstrapping technique uses 95 per cent confidence interval to identify significant results,
meaning that a 95 per cent confidence interval that does not include zero suggests
mediation/moderation effect is statistically significant. 219

Results
Profiles of participants and descriptive statistics
Table I shows that the participants in this study included 81 males (25.6 per cent) and 235
females (74.4 per cent). Most participants were younger than 30 years (63 per cent), single

Category Frequency (%)

Gender
Male 81 25.6
Female 235 74.4
Age
<20 12 3.8
21-30 187 59.2
31-40 81 25.6
41-50 25 7.9
51-60 11 3.5
Marital status
Single 248 78.5
Married 63 19.9
Divorce 5 1.6
Education
High school graduate/G.E.D. 46 14.5
Bachelor degree 248 78.5
Master/Doctoral degree 22 7
Department
Guest room 119 37.7
Food and beverage 97 30.7
Sales and marketing 50 15.8
General accounting 10 3.2
Management 6 1.9
Human resource 12 3.8
Purchasing 3 0.9
Security 1 0.3
Others 18 5.7
Organizational tenure
Less than 1 year 42 13.3
1 but < 2 year 86 27.2
2 but < 3 year 95 30
3 but < 4 year 52 16.5
4 but < 5 year 13 4.1 Table I.
5 year and more 28 8.9 Participants’ profile
IJCHM (78.5 per cent), and had a bachelor degree or higher (85.5 per cent). Additionally, most
32,1 participants worked in the guest room department (37.7 per cent), food and beverage
department (30.7 per cent) and sales and marketing department (15.8 per cent).
Table II presents the analytical results for the descriptive statistics and correlations
among all variables, which shows that all the variables were positively correlated (p < 0.01).

220 Confirmatory factor analysis results

Table III presents the CFA results. According to the initial CFA results, four items in the
OCB scale had low factor loadings (below 0.4); as a factor loading score greater than 0.5 is
usually considered an acceptable threshold (Hair et al., 2010), these four items were dropped.
To examine the construct validity of the measurements, convergent validity was first
assessed. All factor loadings were statistically significant and exceeded 0.5 (ranging from
0.54 to 0.90), suggesting that convergent validity was established (Hair et al., 2010). As for
Average variance extracted (AVE), LMX and OCB had AVE values above 0.5 (0.72 and 0.59
respectively), which also indicates convergent validity. Although the EWC and OI had AVE
values below 0.5 (the AVE for both was 0.47), Fornell and Larcker (1981) stated that an AVE
value below 0.5 but with a composite reliability above 0.6 can still be considered as an
adequate convergent validity of the construct. As EWC and OI both had composite
reliability higher than 0.6 (0.86 and 0.84 respectively), their convergent validity were thus
still acceptable. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing AVE (average variance
extracted) for any two variables with the squared correlation value between them (Hair et al.,
2010). All the AVE values exceeded their corresponding squared correlation scores, which
indicate acceptable discriminant validity (Table IV). The overall fit of this final
measurement model was x 2(399) = 1131.49 (p < 0.01); x 2/d.f. = 2.83; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90;
SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.07. All these indices indicate an acceptable fit for the
measurement model. All constructs also had a reliability coefficient above 0.7, i.e. all
measurements had good reliability. Lastly, the result of Harman’s single factor test showed
that the single-factor model accounts for 35 per cent of the total variance. Therefore,
common method bias was not problematic.

Hypothesis tests results

As in correlation analysis, simple liner regression analysis showed that ethical work climate
was positively associated with OCB (b = 0.47, p < 0.01), which supported H1. Table V
shows that organizational identification had a mediating effect on the relationship between
ethical work climate and OCB, which supported H2. Both ethical work climate and
organizational identification had significant positive associations with OCB (B = 0.24, t =
6.41, p < 0.01; B = 0.22, t = 6.85, p < 0.01). Additionally, bootstrapping analysis on the
indirect effect of ethical work climate on OCB through organizational identification was

Mean SD 1 2 3

1. EWC 5.38 0.99

2. LMX 5.64 0.99 0.56**
3. OI 5.21 1.14 0.41** 0.39**
Table II.
4. OCB 5.64 0.71 0.47** 0.46** 0.48**
Descriptive statistics
and correlations Notes: EWC = Ethical work climate; LMX = Leader-member-exchange; OI = Organizational identification;
among the variables OCB = Organizational citizenship behavior; ** P < 0.01
Variables Means Factor loadings Reliability coefficient AVE
Study of three
star hotels in
Ethical work climate (EWC) 0.86 0.47 Taiwan
EWC1 5.66 0.73
EWC2 5.92 0.72
EWC3 4.81 0.63
EWC4 5.22 0.65
EWC5 4.90 0.56 221
EWC6 5.69 0.76
EWC7 5.47 0.75
Leader-member-exchange (LMX) 0.95 0.72
LMX1 5.90 0.87
LMX2 5.85 0.88
LMX3 5.58 0.90
LMX4 5.61 0.86
LMX5 5.54 0.87
LMX6 5.33 0.70
LMX7 5.67 0.85
Organizational identification (OI) 0.84 0.47
OI1 4.92 0.61
OI2 4.92 0.64
OI3 5.62 0.68
OI4 5.30 0.77
OI5 5.29 0.83
OI6 5.22 0.54
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) 0.93 0.59
OCB1 6.03 0.78
OCB2 6.16 0.79
OCB3 5.53 0.71
OCB4 5.98 0.85
OCB5 5.99 0.83
OCB6 6.00 0.72
OCB7 5.84 0.75
OCB8 5.74 0.79
OCB9 5.42 0.74
OCB10 5.53 0.70

Notes: x 2 = 1131.49 (df = 399, p < 0.00001); CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.90; SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.07 All Table III.
factor loadings are significant at p < 0.01 CFA results (N= 316)

CR EWC LMX OI OCB

EWC 0.86 0.5

LMX 0.95 0.31 0.72
OI 0.84 0.17 0.15 0.5
OCB 0.93 0.22 0.21 0.23 0.59

Notes: CR = Composite reliability; EWC = Ethical work climate; LMX = Leader-member-exchange; OI = Table IV.
Organizational identification; OCB = Organizational citizenship behavior; Bold numbers in the diagonal are Convergent and
AVE and off-diagonal numbers are squared correlation coefficients discriminant validity
IJCHM Model Coefficient SE t-value p
32,1
Model 1: mediator variable model outcome: OI
EWC 0.48 0.06 8.02 < 0.01
Gender 0.12 0.12 1.01 > 0.05
Age 0.01 0.12 0.08 > 0.05
Tenure 0.07 0.08 0.87 > 0.05
222
Model 2: outcome variable model outcome: OCB
EWC 0.24 0.37 6.41 < 0.01
OI 0.22 0.032 6.85 < 0.01
Gender 0.13 0.07 1.93 > 0.05
Age 0.02 0.07 0.38 > 0.05
Tenure 0.1 0.23 0.43 > 0.05
R2 = 0.57
Bootstrapping results for the indirect effect
Index SE LL95%CI UL95%CI
Indirect effect of EWC on OCB via OI 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.15
Table V. Notes: N = 316; EWC = Ethical work climate, OI = Organizational identification, OCB = Organizational
Mediation results citizenship behavior, LL = Lower limit, UL = Upper limit, CI = Confidence interval; Bootstrap sample size =
(PROCESS: Model 4) 5,000

positive and significant (Index = 0.10, the confidence interval [CI] did not contain 0; CI were
0.07 and 0.15).
Table VI presents the moderated mediation results for the conditional indirect effects.
The H3 was that LMX would strengthen the positive relationship between ethical work
climate and organizational identification. This hypothesis was supported by the positive
sign of the significant parameter of the interaction term ethical work climate  LMX, as
reported in Table V (B = 0.14, t = 2.74, p < 0.01). Furthermore, H4 was that stronger LMX
would strengthen the indirect relationship between ethical work climate and OCB through
organizational identification. As Table V shows, the conditional indirect effect was stronger
in the high LMX condition (0.11; CI, 0.07, 0.16), and weaker in the low LMX condition (0.05;
CI, 0.01, 0.09). In addition, the moderated mediation index denoting the difference between
high and low conditional effects showed that both effects were significantly different from
each other (Index = 0.03, CI, 0.01, 0.05). These results lend support to H4.

Discussions and conclusions

Conclusions
In conclusion, this moderated mediation model extends prior research on ethical work
climate and OCB by incorporating organizational identification and LMX. This model is also
one of the first to examine the direct effect of ethical work climate on OCB, as well as the
indirect effect of ethical work climate on OCB through organizational identification, with
LMX as a moderator of such direct effect and indirect effect.

Theoretical implications
Theoretical contributions derived from the findings of this study to the extant hospitality
literature are several. Given seriously scant research on the linkage between ethical work
climate and employees’ OCB in the hospitality literature, the current study addresses this
gap by empirically confirming that an ethical work climate would promote employee OCB.
Model Coefficient SE t-value p Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
Study of three
star hotels in
Model 1: mediator variable model Outcome: OI Taiwan
EWC 0.35 0.07 4.99 <.01 0.21 0.49
LMX 0.32 0.07 4.45 <0.01 0.18 0.45
EWC  LMX 0.14 0.05 2.74 <0.01 0.04 0.24
Gender 0.12 0.12 1.04 >0.05 0.36 0.11
Age 0.05 0.12 0.45 >0.05 0.18 0.28 223
Tenure 0.09 0.08 1.10 >0.05 0.10 0.17
R2 = 0.48
Model 2: Outcome variable model Outcome: OCB
EWC 0.22 0.03 6.85 <0.01 0.16 0.28
OI 0.24 0.04 6.41 <0.01 0.16 0.31
Gender 0.13 0.07 1.93 >0.05 0.26 0.01
Age 0.02 0.07 0.38 >0.05 0.16 0.11
Tenure 0.08 0.09 0.89 >0.05 0.08 0.15
R2 = 0.57
Bootstrapping results for conditional indirect effect (via OI)
LMX (Low) 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.09
LMX (High) 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.16 Table VI.
Index of moderated mediation 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.05 Results of the
Notes: N = 316; EWC = Ethical work climate, OI = Organizational identification, OCB = Organizational moderated mediation
citizenship behavior, LMX = Leader-member-exchange; Boot = Bootstrapped result, LL = Lower limit, analyses (PROCESS:
UL = Upper limit, CI = Confidence interval; Bootstrap sample size = 5,000 model 7)

Along with the findings of many prior research, such finding reveals that building an ethical
work climate helps not only generate various favorable job-related outcomes, such as
increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment (Cheng et al., 2013; Kim and Miller,
2008), improved job performance (Jaramillo et al., 2006) and stronger person organization fit
(Lopez et al., 2009), but also foster employee OCB. This finding also echoes the rationale of
information processing theory (Salancik and Pfeffer, 1978), i.e. people make decisions and
take actions based on the associated information and cues in their work environment. As a
work environment with high ethical standards and high morale would constantly send
employees a message of making/taking ethical decisions/actions, such message should serve
as a guideline to direct employees to engage in ethical in-role job performance, as well as
extra-role behaviors, such as OCB. This could explain why this study reports ethical work
climate would foster employee OCB.
This study also finds that an ethical work climate positively affects OCB through
organizational identification. Such finding not only concurs with the findings of many
previous studies that organizational identification is an essential antecedent of employee
OCB (Liu et al., 2011; Lu et al., 2016) but also shows that an ethical work climate would
contribute to employee organizational identification. Such finding also enriches the
understanding of the current hospitality literature in that the impact of an ethical work
climate on employee OCB can be attributed to employee organizational identification.
Drawing on the social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1979), people tend to classify
themselves into groups that allow them to perceive their identity in a unique and positive
manner. Therefore, since a salient ethical work climate within an organization could
normally serve as an important cue to let employees feel positive about themselves for
working in this organization, employees may also identify more with their organizations
IJCHM when this strong ethical work climate is in place. As such, when organizational
32,1 identification increases due to a strong ethical work climate, employees with strong
organizational identification should become more motivated to engage in in-role and extra-
role duties, such as OCB, to fulfill the goals and benefits of their organizations. All the above
could explain why organizational identification plays as a mediation mechanism between
ethical work climate and OCB.
224 The findings of this study also indicate that LMX enhances the positive relationship
between ethical work climate and organizational identification as well as the indirect
positive effect of ethical work climate on OCB through organizational identification. To the
best of authors’ knowledge, this study provides the first empirical data showing that LMX
has an interaction effect with ethical work climate to jointly influence employee
organizational identification, and subsequently influences employee OCB. These findings
also echo the findings of some previous studies, meaning that LMX is an important
determinant of employees’ organizational identification and OCB (Chow et al., 2015; Wang,
2016; Wang et al., 2017), and thus, could interact with an ethical work climate to jointly affect
employee organizational identification and OCB. The rationale of the social exchange theory
(Blau, 1964) is also proper to explain such findings; this theory contends that, when a person
receives favorable benefits or treatments from others, he/she would feel obligated to repay
others with equivalent favors. Accordingly, employees who constantly receive
advantageous benefits and treatments from their supervisors and who perceive a strong
LMX relationship with their supervisors are likely to return the favor in various manners;
increasing their organizational identification and OCB are two good choices of reciprocal
actions they can take to repay their supervisors. All the above could explain why this study
found that LMX strengthens the positive influence of ethical work climate on organizational
identification as well as the indirect positive influence of ethical work climate on OCB
through organizational identification.

Practical implications
This study has several important practical implications for three-star hotel practitioners in
Taiwan. First, the findings suggest that employees’ perceived ethical work climate would
foster their OCB; therefore, three-star hotels in Taiwan should strive to develop and
maintain a salient ethical work climate throughout the hotel. To this end, human resource
(HR) practices, policies, and procedures must emphasize the value of being ethical
employees. Specifically, HR managers and individual work units should pay attention to the
important role of moral and ethical tests for prospective employees during the recruitment
and selection process as personal ethical values and attitudes are essential for constructing
an ethic work climate within the organization (Baker et al., 2006). As for current employees,
the HR department and each work unit should also ensure their training program constantly
educates employees in the importance of developing an ethical personality and make/take
ethical decisions/actions. Hotels should also have a clear written ethics policy specifying
expectations for employees, as well as outlining what is and what is not considered
acceptable, in order that all the members in the hotel can develop a shared ethical value.
This ethics policy should also include a fair and transparent reward and punishment system
to encourage/inhibit ethical/unethical behaviors in the hotel. Management-level leaders
could also consider implementing ethical leadership style for their subordinates, as ethical
leadership has been reported to be beneficial for developing an ethical work climate (Mayer
et al., 2010).
This study also finds that organizational identification is the key to mediate the effect of
an ethical work climate on employee OCB. Therefore, three-star hotels in Taiwan should
also be aware that whether employees identify with the hotel is important and should Study of three
consider developing and implementing policies and practices to foster such identification. In star hotels in
this manner, hotels can consider constantly honoring their tradition and history;
communicating their goals, strategies and achievements; and emphasizing their core values,
Taiwan
norms and behaviors, which represent the organizational culture to set up a unique and
positive corporate image in employees’ mind, which could in turn reflect on fostering
employees’ identification to the hotel. Hotels should also facilitate communication between
employees with the same characteristics and values as their hotels, to emphasize they have
225
good fit with their hotels. Facilitating communication would also enhance employee
attachment and identity to their hotels. Additionally, hotels can consider providing
additional platforms and opportunities for employees to socialize in the hotel, as
socialization is one essential process to increase employees’ identity toward their
organizations (Ashforth and Mael, 1989). In this manner, hotels could promote their
exemplified practices by encouraging formal and informal communication and interactions
both vertically (employees with managers) and horizontally (employees with employees)
within the hotel, emphasizing shared corporate events and conventions, and developing
cultural messages signaling teamwork and inclusion of individuals in the organization.
Lastly, this study finds that LMX enhances not only the positive influence of ethical
work climate on employee OI, but also the indirect effect of an ethical work climate on
employee OCB through OI. Therefore, three-star hotels in Taiwan should note that
developing high-quality LMX between leaders and subordinates is crucial to enhance
employees’ identification to the hotel, and stimulate more OCB. Hotel leaders should thus
strive to build good relationships with their subordinates by providing supportive resources
and assistance when necessary. Regular mutual evaluation practices on the relationship
between leaders and subordinates should also be implemented to monitor LMX quality.
Moreover, previous studies have found that leaders’ behaviors (e.g. implementing
transformational leadership style and providing contingent rewards) and personality (e.g.
extraverted and agreeable traits) are critical determinants of the quality of LMX (Dulebohn
et al., 2012 for review). Consequently, to develop high quality LMX, hotels should
incorporate the leadership styles and practices suggested in literature into their training
programs for their supervisors, while also selecting their supervisors based on the
suggested personality traits.

Limitations and future research

There are a few limitations in this study that should be addressed in the future research.
First, given that the sample of this study were employees of several three-star hotels in the
northern part of Taiwan, the proposed moderated-mediation model has the concern of
generalizability. Consequently, future research could consider collecting data from other
regions and countries to further validate the generalizability of this model. Secondly,
although the directions of the hypothesized relationships were theoretically driven, this
study is a cross-sectional study, which could cause the conclusions about causality to
become questionable. Hence, future research should consider other research design such as
longitudinal or experimental study to address such limitation. Lastly, as this study collected
data from one single source simultaneously, CMV is another noted limitation (Podsakoff
et al., 2003). Although Harman single factor test showed that CMV was not a threat in this
study, future research could consider minimizing the effect of CMV by using different
sources of respondents and different time points for collecting data for predictor and
outcome variables.
IJCHM References
32,1 Ashforth, B.E., Harrison, S.H. and Corley, K.G. (2008), “Identification in organizations: an examination
of four fundamental questions”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 325-374.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.
Baker, T.L., Hunt, T.G. and Andrews, M.C. (2006), “Promoting ethical behavior and organizational
226 citizenship behaviors: the influence of corporate ethical values”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 7, pp. 849-857.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers.
Brislin, R.W. (1970), “Back-translation for cross-cultural research”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 185-216.
Cha, J. and Borchgrevink, C.P. (2018), “Leader–member exchange (LMX) and frontline employees’
service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior in the foodservice context: exploring the
moderating role of work status”, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Administration, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 233-258.
Cheng, P.Y., Yang, J.T., Wan, C.S. and Chu, M.C. (2013), “Ethical contexts and employee job responses
in the hotel industry: the roles of work values and perceived organizational support”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 34, pp. 108-115.
Chiang, C.F. and Hsieh, T.S. (2012), “The impacts of perceived organizational support and
psychological empowerment on job performance: the mediating effects of organizational
citizenship behavior”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 1,
pp. 180-190.
Chow, C.W., Lai, J.Y. and Loi, R. (2015), “Motivation of travel agents’ customer service behavior and
organizational citizenship behavior: the role of leader-member exchange and internal marketing
orientation”, Tourism Management, Vol. 48, pp. 362-369.
Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M. (2002), “A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship
behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 927-946.
DeConinck, J.B. (2011), “The effects of ethical climate on organizational identification, supervisory trust,
and turnover among salespeople”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 617-624.
Dulebohn, J.H., Bommer, W.H., Liden, R.C., Brouer, R.L. and Ferris, G.R. (2012), “A meta-analysis of
antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: integrating the past with an eye
toward the future”, Journal of Management, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 1715-1759.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and member
identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 239-263.
Eisenberger, R., Karagonlar, G., Stinglhamber, F., Neves, P., Becker, T.E., Gonzalez-Morales, M.G. and
Steiger-Mueller, M. (2010), “Leader–member exchange and affective organizational commitment:
the contribution of supervisor’s organizational embodiment”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1085-1103.
Ellemers, N., De Gilder, D. and Haslam, S.A. (2004), “Motivating individuals and groups at work: a
social identity perspective on leadership and group performance”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 459-478.
Ellemers, N., Pagliaro, S., Barreto, M. and Leach, C.W. (2008), “Is it better to be moral than smart? The
effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status improvement”,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 95 No. 6, pp. 1397-1410.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fu, H., Li, Y. and Duan, Y. (2014), “Does employee-perceived reputation contribute to citizenship
behavior? The mediating role of organizational commitment”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 593-609.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987), “Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing”, Research in Study of three
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 175-208.
star hotels in
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level multi-
Taiwan
domain perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global
Perspective, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
227
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Publications.
Hogg, M.A., Martin, R., Epitropaki, O., Mankad, A., Svensson, A. and Weeden, K. (2005), “Effective
leadership in salient groups: revisiting leader-member exchange theory from the perspective of
the social identity theory of leadership”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31 No. 7,
pp. 991-1004.
Jaramillo, F., Mulki, J.P. and Solomon, P. (2006), “The role of ethical climate on salesperson’s role stress,
job attitudes, turnover intention, and job performance”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 271-282.
Jung, H.S., Namkung, Y. and Yoon, H.H. (2010), “The effects of employees’ business ethical value on
person–organization fit and turnover intent in the foodservice industry”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 538-546.
Kim, W.G. and Brymer, R.A. (2011), “The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction,
commitment, behavioral outcomes, and firm performance”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1020-1026.
Kim, M.S. and Koo, D.W. (2017), “Linking LMX, engagement, innovative behavior, and job performance
in hotel employees”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 29
No. 12, pp. 3044-3062.
Kim, N.Y. and Miller, G. (2008), “Perceptions of the ethical climate in the Korean tourism industry”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 82 No. 4, pp. 941-954.
Kim, P.B., Poulston, J. and Sankaran, A.C. (2017), “An examination of leader–member exchange (LMX)
agreement between employees and their supervisors and its influence on work outcomes”,
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 238-258.
Lee, Y.K., Kim, S.H., Banks, H.S.C. and Lee, K.H. (2015), “An ethical work climate and its consequences
among food-service franchise employees”, Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 20
No. 11, pp. 1286-1312.
Lee, E.S., Park, T.Y. and Koo, B. (2015), “Identifying organizational identification as a basis for attitudes
and behaviors: a meta-analytic review”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 141No No. 5, pp. 1049-1080.
LePine, J.A., Erez, A. and Johnson, D.E. (2002), The Nature and Dimensionality of Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: A Critical Review and Meta-Analysis, American Psychological Association.
Liang, Y.W. (2012), “The relationships among work values, burnout, and organizational citizenship
behaviors: a study from hotel front-line service employees in Taiwan”, International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 251-268.
Liu, Y., Loi, R. and Lam, L.W. (2011), “Linking organizational identification and employee performance
in teams: the moderating role of team-member exchange”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 22 No. 15, pp. 3187-3201.
Lopez, T.B., Babin, B.J. and Chung, C. (2009), “Perceptions of ethical work climate and person–
organization fit among retail employees in Japan and the US: a cross-cultural scale validation”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 594-600.
Lu, V.N., Capezio, A., Restubog, S.L.D., Garcia, P.R. and Wang, L. (2016), “In pursuit of service
excellence: investigating the role of psychological contracts and organizational identification of
frontline hotel employees”, Tourism Management, Vol. 56, pp. 8-19.
IJCHM Luo, Z., Song, H., Marnburg, E. and Øgaard, T. (2014), “The impact of relational identity on the
relationship between LMX, interpersonal justice, and employees’ group commitment”,
32,1 International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 41, pp. 21-27.
Luria, G. and Yagil, D. (2008), “Procedural justice, ethical climate and service outcomes in restaurants”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 276-283.
Ma, E., Qu, H. and Wilson, M. (2016), “The affective and dispositional consequences of organizational
228 citizenship behavior: a cross-cultural study”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 399-431.
Mael, F. and Ashforth, B.E. (1992), “Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 103-123.
Mayer, D.M. (2014), “A review of the literature on ethical climate and culture”, The Oxford Handbook of
Organizational Climate and Culture, Vol. 415.
Mayer, D.M., Kuenzi, M. and Greenbaum, R.L. (2010), “Examining the link between ethical leadership
and employee misconduct: the mediating role of ethical climate”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 95 No. S1, pp. 7-16.
Morrison, E.W. (1994), “Role definitions and organizational citizenship behavior: the importance of the
employee’s perspective”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 1543-1567.
Ocampo, L.A., Tan, T.A.G. and Sia, L.A. (2018), “Using fuzzy DEMATEL in modeling the causal
relationships of the antecedents of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) in the hospitality
industry: a case study in the Philippines”, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
Vol. 34, pp. 11-29.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books/DC Heath and Com.
Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M. and MacKenzie, S.B. (2005), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its
Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences, Sage Publications.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), “A Meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of
organizational citizenship behavior”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 775-802.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Salancik, G.R. and Pfeffer, J. (1978), “A social information processing approach to job attitudes and task
design”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 224-253.
Scandura, T.A., Graen, G.B. and Novak, M.A. (1986), “When managers decide not to decide
autocratically: an investigation of leader–member exchange and decision influence”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 4, pp. 579-584.
Schwepker, C.H., Jr and Hartline, M.D. (2005), “Managing the ethical climate of customer-contact service
employees”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 377-397.
Shin, Y. (2012), “CEO ethical leadership, ethical climate, climate strength, and collective organizational
citizenship behavior”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 108 No. 3, pp. 299-312.
Sparrowe, R.T. and Liden, R.C. (1997), “Process and structure in leader-member exchange”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 522-552.
Sun, L.Y., Chow, I.H.S., Chiu, R.K. and Pan, W. (2013), “Outcome favorability in the link between leader–
member exchange and organizational citizenship behavior: procedural fairness climate matters”,
The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 215-226.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), “An integrative theory of intergroup conflict”, The Social Psychology Study of three
of Intergroup Relations, pp. 33-47.
star hotels in
Turnipseed, D.L. (2002), “Are good soldiers good? Exploring the link between organization citizenship
behavior and personal ethics”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 1-15. Taiwan
Van Dick, R., Grojean, M.W., Christ, O. and Wieseke, J. (2006), “Identity and the extra mile: relationships
between organizational identification and organizational citizenship behavior”, British Journal
of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 283-301.
Victor, B. and Cullen, J.B. (1987), “A theory and measure of ethical climate in organizations”, Research
229
in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 51-71.
Victor, B. and Cullen, J.B. (1988), “The organizational bases of ethical work climates”, Administrative
Science Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 101-125.
Wang, C.J. (2016), “Does leader-member exchange enhance performance in the hospitality industry?
The mediating roles of task motivation and creativity”, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 969-987.
Wang, P.Q., Kim, P.B. and Milne, S. (2017), “Leader–member exchange (LMX) and its work outcomes:
the moderating role of gender”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 125-143.
Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991), “Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors
of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 3,
pp. 601-617.
Yoon, M.H. and Suh, J. (2003), “Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality as external
effectiveness of contact employees”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56 No. 8, pp. 597-611.
Zhang, Y., Guo, Y. and Newman, A. (2017), “Identity judgements, work engagement and organizational
citizenship behavior: the mediating effects based on group engagement model”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 61, pp. 190-197.

About the authors

Chih-Ching Teng is a Full Professor in the Department of Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional
Management at Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan. She received her PhD degree from National
Taiwan Normal University. Her area of research includes hospitality human resource management,
consumers environmental behaviors and green hotels’ issues and practices.
Allan Cheng Chieh Lu is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate Institute of International Human
Resource Development at the National Taiwan Normal University. His area of research interest
includes tourists’ information search behavior, tourists’ destination image and behavioral intention
and human resource issues in hospitality workforce. Allan Cheng Chieh Lu is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: allanlu71429@ntnu.edu.tw
Zhi-Yang Huang is a graduate student in the Department of Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional
Management at Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan. His area of research mainly focuses on green
hotels and human resource management issues and practices.
Chien-Hua Fang is a graduate student in the Department of Restaurant, Hotel, and Institutional
Management at Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan. Her area of research mainly focuses on green
hotels and human resource management issues and practices.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com